I am watching the first half of the game but I have to leave to tape the FSR for Monday. I know that there are a good number of fans looking to post comments so here you are.
Bornstein was badly caught out on the Paraguay opener. Clark struck the equalizer very well.
The US controlled most of play and should be up 3-1.
I think Bobby has it in for JB. He got beat on one ball granted but he and Moor have been quite good.
It is so difficult and frustrating watching this match, being a U.S. supporter. Bobby, I see the U.S. team has two major problems: Passing and receiving. First, they can't/won't make accurate long passes, to change the point of attack quickly- either across the pitch or diagonally. This means they take 3 passes to accomplish what should take one, and not allow a rapid attack, before the opposition is set up. Second, they need to work on receiving the ball; especially the first touch. Too often a short pass (which they must rely upon -see above) hits the receiver's shin or foot, and bounces away, so that he must first catch up to the ball before controlling it. So again, the attack is slowed down. I really want the U.S. team to succeed, but in my opinion, until they work on these fundamental skills, they will not play well consistently. What do you think?
Kudos to Paraguay, they deserved to win. IMHO Argentina will shred their porous defense.
Wow I hope US Soccer is proud of how serious they took this tournament.
The positive? Ricardo Clark player very well today. The negatives? Where do you start. At least Bradley won't have to figure out who is a striker candidate anymore.
Our finishing is just diabolical. EJ was okay but could not finish. Twellman has the touch of a coal miner, no offense to coal miners.
Mapp is just not a NT player and should have scored or passed to EJ who could have been sighted for loitering on the far post. Benny F played well. Olsen is a mucker and is never a threat offensively. When he's taking corners, you know the US lacks service. Klestan was just unimpressive. Moor was good but missed a sitter for a header. Demerit was steady until he got hurt. Conrad was unimpressive and partly at fault for #2 goal. Bornstein forgot that there's 90+ minutes in match. Again Keller's a terrific shot stopper but coming off his line, he's liability and let's face it, it's debateable that he's the #2 keeper.
I don't think passing and receiving is the problem. The US breaks down in the last third. The finishing is diabolical.
The US passing and receiving was good today. They had plenty of opportunties to put this match away.
Bobby - I rescind my statement about Bornstein earlier. I owe you a few snorts of Single Malt.
The best part about tonight is the Argentina-Columbia game. USA strikers have their chances and shoot blanks. No one can complain--they had their chances.
Last edited by Fightin_Fugee on July 2nd at 5:57 PM.
watching argentina-clombia now, indeed fugee, this is a real cracker o####ame, classic south american style and energy and intensity. argentina and messi are kicking ####. sorry to all those u.s. supporters, watch messi and the albiceleste tonight and see what the u.s. team needs to aspire to, and they've still got a looong way to go
I'm sorry, but most of the comments so far are from people who seem to have started watching football yesterday and have no clue what they're talking about. Paraguay deserved to win? Are you kidding me? US completely dominated the match, created a ton of great scoring chances, squandered them all and gave away an absolute gift of a 2nd goal.
It really kills me how people who know nothing about the game or have zero objectivity whatsoever come here to spew negativity. There were a lot more positives than negatives tonight! The US, playing with 6 players with less than 10 caps completely outplayed a good Paraguay side and should have won easily. The finishing was terrible, no doubt, but the rest of US display was excellent.
It was one of those games when one team dominates, but the other team wins. Happens in football all the time.
Some lessons learned so far from the Copa:
1. Finishing, finishing. Golden opportunities come rarely. Missed opportunities will haunt - and lose games.
2. Bornstein is clearly not quality enough for international play against strong teams. Mistakes are amaturish.
3. Keller(while he certainly can't be faulted for all of the goals) is at best the US 3rd keeper
4. The US needs an organized midfield. Soon.
5. Argentina and Paraguay are not Honduras and Guatamala.
6. Our "young and upcoming stars" on display really aren't. I pray the U-20s can feed the USMNT some strong players for the future.
7. Never come to a gunfight with a knife.
8. Despite everything, US players played with heart and determination and never quit. This means everything.
Moor had a great game in his debut. His defending and distribution out of the back were excellent. Unfortunately, he didn't score on a point blank header while completely unmarked.
Clark had a great game controlling the midfield and scoring a beauty.
Twellman played well despite what has been said here by a few clueless folks. He could have done better maybe with a couple of half chances, but did not have clear cut opportunities. Worked hard and his setup for Clark on the goal was gorgeous. Perfect touch for a coal miner.
Bornstein played well overall and snuffed out a lot of chances, but made a terrible back pass that wasn't helped by Conrad's indecision.
Keller, while he can't be blamed directly for any of the goals could have done better on each one. Again, I feel that had Howard been in goal Paraguay might have only gotten 1 goal, if that. Keller just hesitates and leaves the net open when off the line.
Feilhaber played well again. Mapp made an impact after coming in, so I have no idea where the conclusion that he's just not a NT player came from. Yes, he missed a great chance, but he created it with his run and made a bunch of mazy runs.
EJ had another good game. Excellent passing. Still wish he'd be more aggressive and challenge defenders one on one. He's not selfish enough for a striker.
Yes, Paraguay deserved to win. They finished their chances, we did not. It's elementary, mate. Diabolical finishing normally means you lose.
Putting it in the back of the onion bag more than your opponent results in a win.
As far as who knows more about football, are you in elementary school? Thanks for the nonsense, I needed a good laugh today.
Twellman played well, huh? How many of his kits and posters do you own?
Paraguay deserved to win because they took their chances and had better finishing than the US. Plain and simple. It helps to play with heart and determination like the US did for portions of the game, but, ultimately, scoring goals wins games.
Espana - Why is everyone getting on Bornstein's back? He pretty much shut down Messi in the first game and aside from a bad mistake played very well today. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while. I've seen the best defenders on the world screw up like this plenty of times. He's learning... he will make mistakes. That's part of the process. People need to exhibit more patience instead of jumping to conclusions. You only wanna talk about mistakes, but how many times he's saved USA's #### in the two games? The answer to that is countless times.
I also disagree completely that we haven't seen any up and coming stars. The US held Argentina for almost 70 minutes. Argentina is one of the 3 best NT's in the world! And with a bit more luck we would have thrashed Paraguay today. If anything is amateurish here it's the evaluation of their performance because it's based largely on the results. The 4-1 scoreline flattered Argentina in the first game (even Maradona and Basile said as much) and this 3-1 loss today was just a football atrocity and completely against the run of play.
A couple of those numerous chances go in and you (and other "experts") are singing a completely different tune.
Gangatore - If you look at my comments on here I try to always keep a level head and never attack other posters, but your analysis was so woefully incompetent that I just had to make an exception.
Yes, only the goals matter. That is truly amazing analysis and very in-depth. Have you ever heard a term "against the run of play"? That is exactly what happened today and Paraguay did not deserve to win in the least.
Let's analyze what happened again, shall we? How many chances did Paraguay create the whole match? Exactly 1. The other two goals came as a result of a horrible defensive mistake (a total gift) and a well taken free kick at the very end. Other than that Paraguay created nothing. On the other hand the US constantly attacked and created countless chances. Yes, the finishing was far from world class, but as far as who had the better of the play anyone who knows even a little bit about football could see that the Americans dominated this game.
As far as how many posters of Twellman I have. Zero. My analysis is always thoughtful and objective. It's not based on emotion and fan preferences. Read what I wrote about the US u-20 WC game against Korea for some evidence. The game ended 1-1, but US had no business getting a point out that game because they got thoroughly dominated and that is exactly what I said.
Ray Hudson, who is a blinder of an analyst on GOL TV which is the channel I was watching the game on also thought that Twellman played well today. So a guy who understand football very well and analyzes it objectively and intelligently agrees with me. You
Congrats Atleti- Argentina deserved to win. Colombia's play was overly cynical. Argentina's skill is fabulous to witness but they need to finish off their opponents quicker.
I still think they will shred Paraguay. I hope they win it all.
ranndino-need to tone it down a little. it's all fine and dandy to make boisterous remarks like "we would have thrashed paraguay" or "scoreline flattered argentina", it's also important to cooly evaluate overall performance, and that means getting results. many teams, paraguay being a good example, often play a tight, bend don't break, defensive style and feed on mistakes and counterattacks (italy being another). the fact that paraguay played this way and got the desired result is a testament to them executing their game plan. the day the u.s. starts lining up results in the "bigger" tournaments vs the world's better teams, we can say they deserve this or that. for now, the u.s.a shows a lot of energy but also the inability to get the results when it matters against any fairly major national team besides mexico.
all bark, no bite
Like I said, Ray Hudson, a man who has a great knowledge of the game and analyzes it objectively and intelligently agrees with me. You, on other hand, a man who quickly runs out of arguments and immediately resorts to an incredibly "clever" debate tactic of twisting the disagreeing poster's handles into a swear doesn't.
I do thank you for that though. You've just proven that your intelligence level is on par with my girlfriend's house cat.
If anything is truly laughable it's amateurish comments by "experts" like you who judge football only by the scoreboard. Using your "logic" any team that wins always plays better. That is truly laughable bit of analysis.
He's the most verbose, unabashed, homer, and funny sports announcer in history. He's so bad, he's hilarious. I am glad that he agrees with you though.
You are in terrific company.
Keani1 - That is exactly how I analyze games. This has nothing to do with the US. This just happened to be a game involving the US. I would analyze this game the same way if there was any other team playing Paraguay today. You have to take into account much more than just the result to analyze any match objectively.
I'm sorry, but what plan did Paraguay execute? To let the US do whatever the heck they wanted offensively and hope that they don't put away 100% chances? Was part of the plan to also hope that US defense makes a school boy play to gift them the winning goal? If this was their game plan they've executed it brilliantly.
In reality, had the US been able to put away even 30% of the chances they created today Paraguay would have gotten beaten soundly and all of you would be talking about how well the Americans played today.
It is no surprise that someone of your obvious intelligence doesn't appreciate thoughtful, objective analysis delivered with incredible passion and a vocabulary worthy o####ood writer. Not to mention a dose of good humor.
It's obvious that there's really nothing else for me to say to you. I'm going to go turn to my toilet bowl now for a more stimulating conversation.
Congrats on your cat training skills. Their far superior to your ability to objectively analyze football matches.
I'll wait to see what Bobby says about this game before returning.
P.S. BTW, how's Hudson a homer? He dishes out the same amount of credit or blame to either team of any match he commentates. You must have only seen him do these two US games and assumed that he's homer because he had some good things to say about these kids. I'm yet to notice a bias in any game he's ever done. He's passionate and almost always right on. Great announcer.
the US played well but did not deserve to win. As gangatore said Paraguay plays counterattacking style. Similar to what the US does when they play Mexico. Or what Mexico did against Brasil and Ecuador.
Paraguay deserved it because they scored the goals. Just because you have more possesion of the ball or create more scoring chances doesn't mean you deserve to win. Paraguay did not played well by their standards and it's a credit to them that they were able to score 3 goals. Also like the US had chances to score they also had several opportunities to add to their tally.
ranndino
well, in answer to the question what game plan was paraguay executing, i was mentioning that they often play a bend don't break type match, where the focus seems to be to hang tight, wait patiently for mistakes to pounce on and punish. seems this is exactly how they won this match tonight, so if indeed it was part of their tactics, they certainly pulled it off brilliantly.
there is an element of guile in football as well as all the other more obvious displays of footballing skills, it is not to be discounted lightly.
african teams for instance, i feel often lack this, and for all their obvious qualties, they can shoot, pass, run, dribble, etc...they seem too often to lack the wily wisdom and mental aspects needed to grind out results, fight back when trailing, etc...
just something to consider.
for example, for some folks, italy's wc 2006 win was undeserved because they did less attacking. i do not agree. if the french plan was to attack more and score, they failed, earning only a debatable penalty for all their efforts. if italy's plan was to bend not break, counter punch and hold tight with a strong mental attitude, they succeeded as shown in the penalty shootout when the had the composure to put them all away and walk away deserving champions.
If your not going to bring your main players for a prestigeous tounament like this why accept an invite its beyond me. The Gold Cup is worthless. If you want to evaluate your team bring the main guys. I would love to see how donovan fared ,but lets face it he shy away from challenges. U.S. Soccer need a coach who can teach tactical football. Watching these guys is like watching 5yr olds play.
Keani1 - I will reply partially using a post from another board, as I have thought of a perfect example to illustrate my point. Here we go.
It was one of those games when one team dominates, but the other team wins. Ever heard of a term "against the run of play"? Happens in football all the time.
This also happens to the best teams. Maybe some people remember a US vs. Brazil match some years ago (when Romario still played fro Brazil). The US won 1-0 on a long range goal by Preki, but no one in their right mind and with any ability to reason would argue that US deserved it or were a better team that day. They were completely outclassed and rode incredible luck and amazing goalkeeping of Keller to a victory.
Now to add to this. Paraguay's so called brilliant counter attacking plan had a very high dependence on a factor that they did not control - American ability to finish golden opportunities. As such it can't be called a plan. Had Paraguay played a good defensive game and counterattacked I would have agreed with you 100%. But that's not what happened! Their defense played a terrible match allowing 22 shots on goal, many of the 100% goal variety and only incredibly poor finishing by the Americans let them win this match. On the balance of play the US completely dominated this match and thoroughly deserved to win.
On another day a few of those chances would fly into the net and it would look like a comfortable win for the States.
ranndino
you may be right in this case, paraguay's defense was shaky at times, but i'm not sure i agree with the domination by the u.s., personally i found the game to be a back and forth sway, but certainly it happens that on the day the better team doesn't always win.
it's hard to argue with the quality of the 3rd free kick goal by paraguay, and frankly, to me earns them on the whole a narrow but deserved victory in this match.
Keani1 - The aforementioned U-20 WC match between US and Korea is another great example of one team completely dominating the match and not winning it. The US were very lucky to get a point and I said as much in my commentary to that game.
As for the Italians winning the WC I don't even wanna touch that one in this thread because we all know what that would result in. This is about today's US - Paraguay game. All I will say that just as people point out that the US might not have won the Gold Cup had it not been for a terrible decision by the referee at the end of their semifinal vs. Canada I would point out that Italy might not be the world champion without a phantom PK call against Australia that gifted them a knock out round win and send the Aussies home. I'm not an Aussie, but even I am still quite peeved about that one.
In conclusion, not every team that wins deserves to do so. There's a huge element of luck involved in a low scoring sport like soccer where the probability of something fluky deciding a match is so high. That's what makes this game so exciting and unpredictable to those of us who love it.
Paraguay got lucky today. At both ends of the pitch. As simple as that.
Keani1 - Even a quick look at match statistics does not support your view that the game was even close to an even affair. 22 shots on goal by one team is a rare feat in a soccer match. Many of those were not half chances, but excellent opportunities to score. The Paraguayan defense was a complete disaster. If they play this way against a team like Argentina they will get a real hammering.
I agree that the quality of Paraguayan finishing was top notch, but the free kick was so late in the match that it had no bearing on the outcome. As for the 2nd goal, while the finish was brilliant Paraguay did not create that opportunity. It was as much o####ift as you'll ever see at any level.
I stand by my opinion. In fact I'd say this. Had the roles been reversed I would say that US was very lucky to win and didn't deserve it. My analysis has nothing to do with a bias toward any team.
And on that note I'm going to get some sleep. It would be interesting to see what Bobby says. Heck, I might stay up for another 20 minutes to catch the replay of the Fox Sports Report for that.
I did see GOL TV's Spanish analyst say pretty much the same thing as I'm saying in his review of the match. He also said something I've pointed out as well. These two US performances need to be put in perspective. Even Brazil has not looked very impressive with an experimental squad. These US kids have so far performed as well as could be expected.
Just watched the Fox Sports Report highlights and analysis of the match.
Bobby said, "US had more than enough chances to win the game. The 3-1 score is very flattering to Paraguay".
Thank you.
Also, while they were showing the highlights I took down a list of not half chances, but 100% that US created. This is not counting the goal they scored, which was ironically far from a 100% chance, but rather a great finish by Clark.
100% chances for US:
1. Kljestan wide open header from point blank range. Shocking miss.
2. Bornstein one timer off a pass by Johnson after a great build-up. Great save.
3. Mapp on a breakway after a sweet through-ball by Feilhaber. Shoots over. EJ was also wide open for a tap in.
4. Great shot from outside the area by Clark whizzing into the top corner. A superb save.
5. Moor with point blank header while completely unmarked inside the goal area! A very poor, weak header straight at the keeper.
Bobby, can you please tell me why the US uses goalkeeper Kasey Keller. I’ve been watching national team games for some time now and I can say he has never really impressed me. he has a poor record in Europe, I believe he hasn't won a national team match on European soil ever, his club record I heard hasn't been much better. this season he was relegated from the bundesliga being tenth in most goals allowed (44). I think there are better keepers out there that we should be using. Tim Howard is an awesome keeper. he performed well in the Gold Cup and helped Everton to Europe. Marcus Hahnemann is also an outstanding goalkeeper, helping Reading to the premiership last season and almost getting them to Europe in their first season in the top flight, he was named as one of the Championship Team of the Year by the Professional Footballers' Association.
Why can’t Bob Bradley stop relaying on a keeper that is past his prime and us the young talent that have proved themselves at the highest level. This could make the USA stronger knowing that a great keepers are minding the nets behind them.
I really must pipe in here - all your analysis aside - Twellman can't finish, plain and simple. He has had more than enough chances to show that he can't finish, even against the minnows of CONCACAF. Twellman is tireless and runs ragged, and helps to create opportunities, but most often he completely mucks up the chances he makes. He has the Kevin Phillips syndrome.
His touch is good, his finishing stinks. He should not be a forward. Maybe move him to midfield.
Tyler - I could agree more that Keller should not be on the national team anymore, but you're doing him a great disservice by trashing his past. He was an excellent keeper throughout his career. His game against Brazil (the one I mentioned above) was the best goalkeeping performance I have ever seen.
The statistic that his club was relegated this year and that he allowed a lot of goals is meaningless because his club simply sucked. There's only so much a keeper can do. He was highly rated when he played in England.
Having said that he's slowed down visibly in both, his reflex time and coming off the line. Considering his age and an abundance of good young keepers I have no idea why he's still around. This team is supposed to be about giving experience to young players, not about giving the last hurray to a player that will definitely not play in the next WC.
I'm gonna catch a lot of #### for defending Twellman, but here it goes.
He is the most lethal finisher and consistent striker in the MLS over the past few years. It takes time to adjust to the international game. Even the best of strikers go through dry spells. All you can ask of a striker is to work his #### off for the team and that he certainly does. I know that ultimately strikers are judged on goals, but people need to be a bit more patient.
I thought Taylor had a good game today. He battled hard and setup the only US goal with a beautiful touch back to Clark. He's the new favorite pinata for all the people watching the US, but the fact is this. How many clear cut chances did he get today? None. A couple of very tough half chances. People who are so harsh on him obviously don't play the game themselves.
I'm ready for my beating, but I just like to be objective and not completely trash a kid for having a few average games (not terrible - even the best strikers are often completely invisible aside from not scoring). I would wait to make judgments because once he starts scoring everyone who was trashing him will look silly. If you really look at it he hasn't really played that many games for the NT yet.
Even a guy like Van Nistelrooy, who is without a doubt one of the top 3 strikers in the world right now had a very tough time in the first half of the season at Real. Once he adjusted he turned into an unstoppable scoring machine.
The words 'DESERVE' and 'DESERVED' should be struck from the lexicon of footballing terms.
Whoever scores more goals wins, always has been always will be, real simple. It is nice to win with skill etc, but any football fan will take win, no matter how ludicrous (i.e Chile's qualifying match against USSR for a place in the '74 WC!).
The US is actually playing better than expected, think about that, it is accurate, but they are still getting beat. It's a bad world outside CONCACAF. Bob Bradley showed his acumen when he only brought in two new faces against Paraguay.
But just look at Mexico, Il Tri could get a semi against Argentina and the US beat them.
Did anyone see the first Colombian goal, surely Edixon Perea's back heel was not actually a penalty kick? Get your facts right or actually watch the game AP!
Vicious, nasty, tough and beautiful South American football of the old school; with plenty of theatrics; what a great match, sadly messed up by terrible refereeing.
Rodallega should get an Emmy for flopping down near Milito and getting the Argentinean defender a suspension for the next game.
Messi - penalty? not if you have eyes.
Cambiaso shoving Viafara to the turf in the area is only not a penalty if money changed hands
How did Vargas stay on the pitch for 90 minutes? And I can lip read Spanish!
Perea tries some Colombian martial art on Messi; nearly taking the poor kid's head off and then Veron gets a yellow for a soft tackle. Consistency is obviously a cookery term, not a footballing one.
One thing I do not understand is about the US taking a "B" team to the Copa. A lot pf people say that we should have the respect to take out best team to this tournament and if not we should not go. So, since Brazil did not Bring Kaka and Ronaldinho they must not have the respect for the Copa and should have not come. If you can not bring your "A" team then why play? Furthermore in years past Argentina and Brazil have not brought there "A" team - so does that mean they do not deserve to play in the Copa? The reason for USA and Mexico in the tournament is for TV and hitting the market in North America.
My next thought is these regional tournaments are two-fold - one is to give bragging rights for the region and the second is to gain a spot for the Confederations Cup – more meaningful games against good teams. Well the USA has done that. So, why not give some fringe players a chance in real game (not friendlies) to show there worth.
I hope that Brad Guzan starts against Columbia and we see some different strikers – or at least anyone but EJ. You can not win a tournament with 11 players, you need to find a good roster with players that fit with the team, and I hope (naively) that Bradley is doing that at this point – just evaluating talent and just using the mix of old and young players to bridge the gap until the next world cup.
I am the soccer analyst for the Fox Soccer Report and appear twice a week - every Monday and Friday at 10:00 EST. I have also been a regular contributor to the Fox Soccer Channel website since the summer of 2004. Over the last twenty years I have contributed to various radio and television programs throughout North America as well writing about the game for newspapers, magazines and websites.
Thank you to all who take time to visit this blog and especially to those of you who post your comments and thoughts.
PS - If you have questions please post them on the regular Monday blog. I am unable to answer e mails posted to the inbox on this site.
And one more thing. If you have questions or complaints or compliments about programming please contact Fox Soccer Channel or Fox Sports World Canada directly. I have no control over what the stations televise.
